FreedomWorks - Fourth Amendmenthttp://www.freedomworks.org/fieldtags/fourth-amendment
enCivil Asset Forfeiture: Grading the Stateshttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/civil-asset-forfeiture-grading-states
<div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="//d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/large/s3/field/image/Screen Shot 2015-06-08 at 10.32.41 AM.png?itok=waOcHoBE"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="//d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/large/s3/field/image/Screen Shot 2015-06-08 at 10.32.41 AM.png?itok=waOcHoBE" width="480" height="318" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>Civil asset forfeiture is a unique area of law in which the government charges specific property of being guilty of wrongdoing, rather than a person. Perhaps because the property is accused of wrongdoing, and not the person, governments often place lower standards of proof needed to forfeit the property. The procedures used by the federal government and many state governments creates grave Fourth and Fifth Amendment concerns.</p>
<p>Since 2008, the federal government has regularly brought in over $1 billion a year in forfeiture proceeds. Although most states lack reporting requirements that would allow us to track forfeiture proceeds, those that do report reveal that states regularly bring in millions of dollars each year.</p>
<p>While civil asset forfeiture has been used as a funding source since our country’s founding, the practice has accelerated at the state and local level since the 1980s. With the creation of new taxes (income, sales, property, corporate) civil asset forfeiture should no longer be needed to raise revenue for governments that have plenty of other revenue streams.</p>
<p>In the wake of rising public outcry against abusive civil asset forfeiture laws, states such as Minnesota, <a href="http://www.freedomworks.org/content/its-historic-day-private-property-rights-new-mexico-more-work-ahead-restore-fifth-amendment">New Mexico</a>, and <a href="http://www.freedomworks.org/content/montana-governor-signs-legislation-protect-innocent-property-owners-government-overreach">Montana</a> have led the reform movement, and other states such as <a href="http://www.freedomworks.org/content/legislation-move-california-protect-innocent-property-owners-abuse-civil-asset-forfeiture">California</a>, <a href="http://www.freedomworks.org/content/gop-controlled-michigan-house-passes-comprehensive-civil-asset-forfeiture-reform-package">Michigan</a>, and <a href="http://www.freedomworks.org/content/new-report-reveals-shocking-abuse-pennsylvanias-civil-asset-forfeiture-laws-against-innocent">Pennsylvania</a> are in the midst of meaningful discussions about reforms. While this movement is great, more states and the federal government, need to follow their lead and reform their own civil asset forfeiture laws.</p>
<p>With civil asset forfeiture becoming a bigger issue at the state and federal levels, FreedomWorks has released its guide to <em>Grading the States</em> on this important issue. As can be seen by the grades of the states and federal government, there are still plenty of reforms to be implemented before this travesty of justice is corrected.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/267761329/Civil-Asset-Forfeiture-Grading-the-States">Civil Asset Forfeiture: Grading the States</a></p>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/267761329/content?start_page=1&amp;view_mode=scroll&amp;access_key=key-dtAWuGmYvR2DSnCSxhnp&amp;show_recommendations=true" data-auto-height="false" data-aspect-ratio="0.7729220222793488" scrolling="no" id="doc_13281" width="100%" height="600" frameborder="0"></iframe>
</div></div></div>Mon, 08 Jun 2015 14:04:38 +0000mgreibrok61508 at http://www.freedomworks.orghttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/civil-asset-forfeiture-grading-states#commentsMatt Kibbe's Response to the NSA - Phone Smashhttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/matt-kibbes-response-nsa-phone-smash
<div class="field field-name-video-embed field-type-video-embed-field field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">
<div class="embedded-video">
<div class="player">
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/onecY9zDbqc?width=640&amp;height=360&amp;autoplay=0&amp;vq=large&amp;rel=0&amp;controls=1&amp;autohide=2&amp;showinfo=1&amp;modestbranding=0&amp;theme=dark&amp;iv_load_policy=1&amp;start=0&amp;wmode=opaque" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> </div>
</div>
</div></div></div>Wed, 20 May 2015 21:52:51 +0000treylowell8661453 at http://www.freedomworks.orghttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/matt-kibbes-response-nsa-phone-smash#commentsNo-Knock Raids Create Dangers for the Families and Law Enforcementhttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/no-knock-raids-create-dangers-families-and-law-enforcement
<div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="//d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/large/s3/field/image/cory maye.jpg?itok=iwQS5BvV"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="//d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/large/s3/field/image/cory maye.jpg?itok=iwQS5BvV" width="480" height="269" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p><a href="http://reason.com/reasontv/2008/05/07/mississippi-drug-war-blues">Cory Maye</a>, a loving father of an 18 month old daughter at the time, was sleeping in his living room the day after Christmas at 12:30 a.m. when he heard banging at the door. He had no prior record, but lived in a rough neighborhood, where break-ins had taken place before, so he grabbed his pistol and ran to the back bedroom to defend his daughter.</p>
<p>His door was finally kicked in and when he saw a dark figure appear in the entryway he fired three shots. After firing the shots, he heard for the first time the announcement that they were police officers. He immediately apologized for firing shots, dropped his his pistol, and slid it towards the door. Unfortunately, one of the shots he fired entered Officer Ron Jones just below the officer’s bullet proof vest, killing him.</p>
<p>The first time Cory, who was not the target of the botched raid, was visited by his mother in prison he told her he did not understand why the officers did not announce themselves and avoid the whole tragedy altogether. Cory was initially convicted of 1st degree murder and sentenced to death. After an appeals process he ultimately reached a plea agreement and served 10-years in prison.</p>
<p>The general rule for centuries has been that when police serve a warrant in a suspect’s house, they first knock on the door and announce who they are and why they are there. This was the common law rule, is understood to be included in the Fourth Amendment’s protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures” and was ultimately codified in <a href="http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/II/205/3109">18 U.S.C. §3109</a>.</p>
<p>The knock-and-announce rule was meant to accomplish three things: (1) give the suspect a moment of privacy to compose themselves, (2) prevent the unnecessary destruction of property and (3) prevent mistaken identity as an intruder.</p>
<p>In the last few decades we have seen a large increase in the number of no-knock raids carried out by law enforcement. A no-knock raid is where rather than knocking on the door and announcing that they are here to serve a warrant, law enforcement simply knocks down the suspect’s door, often with guns drawn.</p>
<p>No-knock raids were originally used in extreme cases where officers were concerned for their safety or that evidence could quickly be destroyed. In <a href="http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/number-annual-swat-team-raids-jumps-3000-1981-over-50000-2005">1981 only around 3,000 no-knock raids</a> were carried out in the United States, but by 2005 that number increased to 50,000 and <a href="http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/no-knock-police-raid-ends-in-blazing-tragedy/">last year 80,000 were carried out</a>.</p>
<p>The Cato Institute has tracked the rise of no-knock raids, and <a href="http://www.cato.org/raidmap">documented dozens of botched operations</a> in which innocent people or police officers were killed or injured. Rarely is the government held accountable when things go horribly wrong.</p>
<p>No-knock warrants are available if issued by a judge, but often these raids are carried out without specific authority to do so. A Supreme Court case, <a href="http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2005/2005_04_1360"><em>Hudson v. Michigan</em> (2006)</a>, made this more likely by ruling that a violation of the knock-and-announce rule does not require the suppression of evidence found during the search.</p>
<p>While one of the main purposes for no-knock raids was to increase safety, the way they have been carried out has had the opposite effect. The raid on Cory Maye illustrates this point well, and there have been other tragedies as well.</p>
<p>Consider the tragic example of <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/25/jose-guerena-arizona-_n_867020.html">Jose Guerena</a>, an Iraq War veteran who served two tours with the Marines and had no prior record. One morning his wife saw a gunman outside their son’s window and was frightened because two of her relatives had been killed during a home invasion. Jose told his wife and children to hide in a closet while he grabbed his AR-15 in order to defend his family from what seemed to be an attack.</p>
<p>What was really happening was a no-knock raid carried out by law enforcement. Once police broke down the front door of Jose’s house they unloaded over 70 bullets in a matter of 7 seconds, 60 of which hit Jose. An ambulance arrived within two minutes but law enforcement would not allow paramedics to attend Jose for another hour. He would eventually bleed to death, in his own home, alone.</p>
<p>Police at first claimed Jose shot first but it was later discovered that he still had his safety on when he was shot. Nothing illegal was found in his home.</p>
<p>We have moved away from requiring officers knock-and-announce towards allowing more no-knock raids, in part to supposedly promote safety. But when someone thinks a burglar is breaking into their home, mistakes are often made. People, both police and suspects, have lost their lives because of needless misunderstandings. We should return to the knock-and-announce rule, except for the most hardened criminals, before more tragedies take place.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-button-text field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Learn About the Government&#039;s Use of General Warrants</div></div></div>Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:02:27 +0000mgreibrok61390 at http://www.freedomworks.orghttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/no-knock-raids-create-dangers-families-and-law-enforcement#commentsJeb Bush says the "best part" of Obama's presidency is the NSA's unconstitutional domestic spying programhttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/jeb-bush-says-best-part-obamas-presidency-nsas-unconstitutional-domestic-spying-program
<div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="//d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/large/s3/field/image/jeb-bush-20119761jpg-a137a6bdd738a087.jpg?itok=_HrtBn-j"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="//d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/large/s3/field/image/jeb-bush-20119761jpg-a137a6bdd738a087.jpg?itok=_HrtBn-j" width="480" height="321" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>Jeb Bush continues to defend the National Security Agency's unconstitutional domestic spying program, telling a conservative talk show host that this gross encroachment on the Fourth Amendment is the "best part of the Obama administration."</p>
<p>There's absolutely no evidence that the National Security Agency's domestic spying program has prevented a terrorist attack in the United States. This is a conclusion reached by the <a href="http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/do_nsas_bulk_surveillance_programs_stop_terrorists">New America Foundation</a> and the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-phone-record-collection-does-little-to-prevent-terrorist-attacks-group-says/2014/01/12/8aa860aa-77dd-11e3-8963-b4b654bcc9b2_story.html">White House Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technology</a>. The <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/23/politics/nsa-telephone-records-privacy/">Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board</a> could "not identif[y] a single instance involving a threat to the United States in which the program made a concrete difference in the outcome of a counterterrorism investigation."</p>
<p>Bush, however, hails the massive expansion of the NSA and its domestic spying program. "I would say the best part of the Obama administration has been his continuance of the protections of the homeland using the big metadata programs, the NSA being enhanced," <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/21/jeb-bush-nsa_n_7113264.html?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000016">the former Florida governor told Michael Medved on Tuesday</a>. "Even though he never defends it, even though he never admits it, there has been a continuation of a very important service, which is the first obligation of our national government is to keep us safe."</p>
<p>Not only is the narrative that Bush is trying to set utterly false when compared to aforementioned reports by private and government-backed panels, there is no legal basis for the NSA's domestic spying program.</p>
<p>NSA apologists say that Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act authorizes this broad program through which the NSA can collect metadata on virtually every call made in the United States. But the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board rebutted this argument, noting "Section 215 does not provide an adequate legal basis to support the program."</p>
<p>The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board <a href="http://www.freedomworks.org/content/nominee-replace-eric-holder-odds-white-house-panel-privacy-oversight-board-nsa-spying">listed several reasons</a> why this broad interpretation of Section 215 runs afoul of what the statute actually says. While Section 215 does authorize the collection of records connected to terrorism investigation, as the Board explained, it was not meant to apply so broadly that the government is collecting records of swaths of innocent people who are not suspected of terrorist activity. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), who authored the PATRIOT Act and now advocates for reform to protect civil liberties, noted that this absurd notion rests on the idea that the government needs the "the haystack" (virtually every call made in the United States) "to find the needle" (records relevant to an actual investigation).</p>
<p>Moreover, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board noted that the language of the statute "permits only the FBI to obtain items for use in its investigations; it does not authorize the NSA to collect anything."</p>
<p>The Fourth Amendment <a href="http://www.freedomworks.org/content/insidious-tyranny-general-warrants">exists to prevent the federal government from illegal searches and seizures</a> through general warrants. No one disagrees that terrorism is a threat to the United States, but, as Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) explained in an August 2013 interview, "it’s precisely because we live in this dangerous world that we need protections like the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution."</p>
<p>Section 215 will expire on June 1, and there's a showdown looming. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) introduced legislation, <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1035">S. 1035</a>, on Tuesday <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/mcconnell-introduces-bill-to-extend-nsa-surveillance/2015/04/21/fa4b66aa-e89d-11e4-aae1-d642717d8afa_story.html">to extend the provision through the end of 2020</a>.</p>
<p>Reformers in Congress have, however, introduced the Surveillance State Repeal Act, <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1466">H.R. 1466</a>. This bill, <a href="http://www.freedomworks.org/content/letter-support-surveillance-state-repeal-act">which FreedomWorks supports</a>, would <a href="http://www.freedomworks.org/content/top-5-reasons-support-surveillance-state-repeal-act">bring to an end the NSA's unconstitutional domestic spying program</a> and restore the civil liberties protected by the Fourth Amendment.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-button-text field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Stop the NSA&#039;s Warrantless Spying</div></div></div>Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:20:03 +0000jpye61366 at http://www.freedomworks.orghttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/jeb-bush-says-best-part-obamas-presidency-nsas-unconstitutional-domestic-spying-program#commentsJeb Bush is wrong about the NSA's unconstitutional domestic spying programhttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/jeb-bush-wrong-about-nsas-unconstitutional-domestic-spying-program
<div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="//d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/large/s3/field/image/Bush.jpg?itok=q9ahCbyH"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="//d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/large/s3/field/image/Bush.jpg?itok=q9ahCbyH" width="480" height="288" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>There's no indication that the National Security Agency's unconstitutional domestic spying efforts have thwarted an actual terrorist plot inside the United States. In January 2014, the New America Foundation <a href="http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/do_nsas_bulk_surveillance_programs_stop_terrorists">released a report on the 225 individuals investigated for terrorism</a> in which it explained that the so-called "all calls" surveillance program <a href="http://www.newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/Bergen_NAF_NSA%20Surveillance_1_0_0.pdf">"had no discernible impact on preventing acts of terrorism."</a></p>
<p>The White House Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technology, in December 2013, <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/12/18/liberty-and-security-changing-world">determined</a> that the NSA's domestic spying program "was not essential to preventing attacks." A month later, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) <a href="http://www.pclob.gov/library/215-Report_on_the_Telephone_Records_Program.pdf">couldn't find</a> "a single instance involving a threat to the United States in which the program made a concrete difference in the outcome of a counterterrorism investigation."</p>
<p>The PCLOB, in its report, noted that <a href="http://www.freedomworks.org/content/nominee-replace-eric-holder-odds-white-house-panel-privacy-oversight-board-nsa-spying">there's no legal basis for bulk collection of phone records</a>, citing four specific reasons, including that records obtained "have no connection to any specific FBI investigation at the time of their collection" and bulk collection of calls is "an approach lacking foundation in the statute and one that is inconsistent with FISA as a whole."</p>
<p>Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), who introduced the USA PATRIOT Act, has even spoken out against the use of the law to collect the phone records of Americans. "The phone records of innocent Americans do not relate to terrorism, whatsoever; and they are not reasonably likely to lead to information that relates to terrorism," <a href="http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/15268-patriot-act-author-introduces-measure-to-end-nsa-bulk-data-collection">Sensenbrenner told a crowd at the Cato Institute in October 2013</a>. "Put simply, the phone calls we make to our friends, our families, and business associates are private and have nothing to do with terrorism or the government’s efforts to stop it."</p>
<p>"The arguments to the contrary are not compelling," Sensenbrenner explained. "The government claims it needs the haystack to find a needle. But gathering the haystack -- and making it larger -- without knowledge that it contains the needle is precisely what the relevant standard was supposed to prevent."</p>
<p>But Jeb Bush lives in a different world, one in which the federal government isn't bound by its constitutional limitations nor respects the Bill of Rights. During <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/03/30/jeb-im-nervous-about-nsa-criticism-obama-should-defend-nsa/">an interview on <em>The Hugh Hewitt Show</em></a>, the former Florida governor defended the NSA. "I’ve always been nervous about the attacks on the NSA, and somehow that we’re losing our freedoms by keeping the homeland safe," said Bush. "I think we need to be really vigilant about that.”</p>
<p>"I think the President has to lead, has to explain to people. He’s actually enhanced the intelligence capabilities, in many ways, because technology has gotten better. But he never defends it. He never explains it. He never tries to persuade people that their civil liberties are being protected by the systems we have in place," he added. "If people knew that, I don’t think there’d be any doubt that they would want to have the ability to identify people from the outside that may be trying to coordinate with some people in the inside."</p>
<p>This is isn't the first time that Bush has spoken out in support of the NSA's domestic spying program. In February, Bush, speaking at a luncheon in Chicago, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/18/politics/jeb-bush-2016-nsa-spying/">told a crowd</a>, "For the life of me I don't understand, the debate has gotten off track." He also repeated claim that civil liberties are being protected. "[T]his," he said, contrary to the facts, "is a hugely important program to use these technologies to keep us safe."</p>
<p>Though he has called for reforms, President Obama did initially defend the NSA's spying program, which, just last month, <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/nsa-spying-wins-another-rubber-stamp-20150227">was renewed by the rubber stamp Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court</a>. The problem, of course, is that he has no real credibility with the American people. After all, on multiple occasions, he promised Americans that if they liked their health plan, they could keep it. Not long after, millions of Americans lost their health insurance coverage. That now infamous line <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/">was PolitiFact's 2013 "Lie of the Year."</a></p>
<p>The entire basis of the NSA's domestic spying program is fundamentally inconsistent with the protections in the Fourth Amendment, rendering Bush's point moot. The Fourth Amendment protects Americans "against unreasonable searches and seizures," so a program that collects the phone records of Americans not under investigation for terrorist activity undermines this crucial civil liberty. Calls made to parents, kids, grandparents, friends, and so on shouldn't be of any interest to the federal government.</p>
<p>The only way someone, like Bush and the NSA's apologists in Congress, can make an argument to the contrary would be to say that every American is a terrorist suspect and that every single call made in the United States is, somehow, connected to an investigation. Such a claim would be truly absurd, but that is, ostensibly, what Bush is saying in his repeatedly poor attempts to defend the indefensible.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-button-text field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Learn More about the Surveillance State Repeal Act</div></div></div>Tue, 31 Mar 2015 19:49:19 +0000jpye61278 at http://www.freedomworks.orghttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/jeb-bush-wrong-about-nsas-unconstitutional-domestic-spying-program#commentsCivil Forfeiture Reform: States Have Led, More Need to Followhttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/civil-forfeiture-reform-states-have-led-more-need-follow
<div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="//d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/large/s3/field/image/Minnesota_State_Capitol.jpg?itok=q3ZEAw48"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="//d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/large/s3/field/image/Minnesota_State_Capitol.jpg?itok=q3ZEAw48" width="480" height="310" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>Under civil asset forfeiture, the government can take someone’s property without convicting them of a crime. The law has its basis in British admiralty law and makes little sense in today’s modern world. While there are has been some discussion of<a href="http://www.freedomworks.org/content/house-hearing-civil-forfeiture"> reforming forfeiture at the federal level</a>, the states are leading the charge to reform. However, more reforms are needed at the state and federal level, and can be based on the reforms already implemented in some states.</p>
<p>Civil asset forfeiture is an obscure area of law which turns many principles of western legal thought on its head. Under the law, the government is able to seize your property if they believe it was connected to a crime. No longer are you “innocent until proven guilty,” instead your property is taken without any guilt established.</p>
<p>In court, the burden of proof is too often on the individual to prove that the property was not used to further a crime. This creates the unenviable position of having to prove a negative. When the government does have to prove its case, they generally only have to meet a low burden, such as preponderance of the evidence, rather than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard required in criminal proceedings.</p>
<p>With these stated problems, reforms at the state level should cover three specific principles. First, any assets seized should be placed in neutral accounts, not the police budget. This would remove the perverse profit incentive. Second, reforms should address due process concerns in two ways. The government should have the burden to prove that the property was used in connection with a crime. Further, the standard should be “beyond a reasonable doubt” or “clear and convincing.” Third, an individual should actually be convicted of a crime before the government can seize any property.</p>
<p>State level reform is possible, two states have recently passed reforms that match these principles. Last year, the Governor of <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/05/07/minnesota-forfeiture-reform/">Minnesota signed into law a reform bill</a> that had unanimous support in the House and passed 55-5 in the Senate. There must now be a criminal conviction or guilty plea before an asset forfeiture proceeding. The burden of the proof is on the government to prove the property was used to further the crime.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.freedomworks.org/content/new-mexico-passes-sweeping-bill-protect-innocent-peoples-property-civil-asset-forfeiture">New Mexico’s Legislature recently passed a reform bill</a> with unanimous support in the House and Senate. It is now awaiting the governor’s signature. Under the reform, a person must be convicted of a crime before their property is seized. The government must also prove the property was used in commission of that crime. Also, any monetary gains from a seizure go into the general fund rather than the police budget.</p>
<p>While these reforms are great, <a href="http://www.ij.org/asset-forfeiture-report-grade-detail">other states are in desperate need of real reform</a>. Call, email or go to your state legislator’s town hall meetings and ask why these states have implemented reforms and your state has not. If you are lucky enough to live in one of the states that have reformed asset forfeiture laws, thank your representatives for standing up for property and due process rights.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-button-text field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Real Talk: Civil Asset Forfeiture</div></div></div>Wed, 25 Mar 2015 15:44:55 +0000mgreibrok61255 at http://www.freedomworks.orghttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/civil-forfeiture-reform-states-have-led-more-need-follow#commentsThe NSA Lawsuithttp://www.freedomworks.org/university/lessons/nsa-lawsuit
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>Ken Cuccinelli describes the revelations about the nature and scope of the National Security Agency (NSA) spying on innocent Americans as a wake-up call for lovers of liberty. He explains how the government is violating our basic civil liberties, and how he, along with FreedomWorks, has launched a legal defense of our rights to privacy, demanding that the NSA stop collecting data without a warrant and destroy any data they have already collected in this way.</p>
<p>Ken Cuccinelli is the current President of the Senate Conservatives Fund, a grassroots organization dedicated to electing conservative leaders to the U.S. Senate. He was the Virginia Attorney General from 2010-2014, and was best known for his efforts to preserve liberty and defend the U.S. Constitution. Prior to that, he served as a member of the Virginia State Senate, where his experience as a small business owner and attorney uniquely prepared him to serve on the Courts of Justice Committee, Transportation Committee, Local Government Committee, Rehabilitation and Social Services Committee, and the Agriculture, Conservation, and Natural Resources Committee.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/fieldtags/civil-liberty" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">civil liberty</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/fieldtags/fourth-amendment" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Fourth Amendment</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/fieldtags/privacy" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">privacy</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/fieldtags/spying" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">spying</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tag/fwf" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">FWF</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-related-core-issues field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/issue/judicial-reform" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Judicial Reform</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="//d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/NSA Lawsuit.png" width="508" height="304" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-course field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/university/courses/judiciary" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">The Judiciary</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-video-embed field-type-video-embed-field field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Video URL:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">
<div class="embedded-video">
<div class="player">
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/VUJZ51NeXBE?width=640&amp;height=360&amp;autoplay=0&amp;vq=large&amp;rel=0&amp;controls=1&amp;autohide=2&amp;showinfo=1&amp;modestbranding=0&amp;theme=dark&amp;iv_load_policy=1&amp;start=0&amp;wmode=opaque" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> </div>
</div>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-featured-on-home field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Featured On Home:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-featured-on-issue field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Featured On Issue:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div>Wed, 04 Mar 2015 20:21:32 +0000k_c61551 at http://www.freedomworks.orghttp://www.freedomworks.org/university/lessons/nsa-lawsuit#commentsCPAC Panel on Asset Forfeiturehttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/cpac-panel-asset-forfeiture
<div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="//d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/large/s3/field/image/CPAC Forfeiture.jpg?itok=sNItdi2R"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="//d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/large/s3/field/image/CPAC Forfeiture.jpg?itok=sNItdi2R" width="480" height="270" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>The practice of asset forfeiture has been a hot topic in Washington D.C. lately, whether it has been Attorney General Eric Holder announcing the federal government will <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/holder-ends-seized-asset-sharing-process-that-split-billions-with-local-state-police/2015/01/16/0e7ca058-99d4-11e4-bcfb-059ec7a93ddc_story.html">no longer take part in the equitable sharing program</a> or the <a href="http://www.freedomworks.org/content/house-hearing-civil-forfeiture">House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations</a> calling into question the entire practice of civil asset forfeiture. Because of the importance and timeliness of the issue, CPAC had a panel consisting of Pat Nolan, Derek Cohen and Darpana Sheth to discuss what is wrong with asset forfeiture and what we the people can do to fix it.</p>
<p>Civil asset forfeiture was passed into law by our First Congress but was used sparingly until prohibition, and more recently, the War on Drugs. One reason for the increasing use of civil asset forfeiture is that in 1984 an Assets Forfeiture Fund was created within the Department of Justice and from that time on seized funds remained within the seizing agency, rather than being put in the government’s general revenue funds. This perverse incentive, where the seizing agency keeps the money, has led to a large increase in the amount of funds seized, <a href="https://www.ij.org/foreword-2">from under $95 million in 1986 to over $1 billion in 2008</a> and subsequent years. The problem with civil asset forfeiture is not that it creates bad actors in law enforcement, it is that the programs have bad laws which created bad incentives for law enforcement.</p>
<p>For instance, I-40 in Tennessee is a <a href="http://www.offthegridnews.com/current-events/tennessee-police-under-investigation-for-taking-cash-from-citizens/">well-known drug corridor</a> where drugs move eastbound towards Nashville and cash flows back west. While law enforcement claims that civil forfeiture is important to stop the drug trade, seizures were made in westbound lanes ten times more often than they were in the eastbound lanes. In other words, police were seizing money returning west after drug transactions instead of seizing the drugs before they reached the city and were distributed to users. Another abuse is that a DEA agent had the job of going through properties to determine which would be ripe for a forfeiture action. They specifically looked for properties that were paid off entirely and were small enough that they could not afford to defend their property in a lawsuit. This led to the <a href="http://reason.com/archives/2012/11/21/drug-dealing-and-legal-stealing">forfeiture of the Motel Caswell</a>, a small family owed hotel where a handful of drug crimes occurred over a 15 year period, and not a local Motel 6, Wal-Mart or Home Depot where similar crimes occurred.</p>
<p>This case is disgusting and shows a larger problem with civil asset forfeiture. The seizing agency does not necessarily go after parties that are harming the public at large, too often the government’s strategy seems to be to go after people with limited funds who will run out of money before they before they can properly defund their property in court. This can lead to innocent people making a settlement out of court to ensure that they are able to keep a portion of their property, rather than lose everything. This is legalized theft!</p>
<p>While there is plenty wrong with civil asset forfeiture, the good news is that you can do something about it. Civil asset forfeiture is a great opportunity to get involved with at the local level because every state, and the federal government, could use reform. There are actually very few supporters of civil asset forfeiture; the problem is that not enough people know about the abuses. The Institute for Justice is currently active in 14 states working on reforms, you can get involved as well.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-button-text field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Support the FAIR Act</div></div></div>Mon, 02 Mar 2015 17:51:11 +0000mgreibrok61179 at http://www.freedomworks.orghttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/cpac-panel-asset-forfeiture#commentsLawsuit forces a Nevada county to return innocent people's money illegally taken through civil asset forfeiturehttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/lawsuit-forces-nevada-county-return-innocent-peoples-money-illegally-taken-through-civil
<div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="//d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/large/s3/field/image/Policing-for-Profit.jpg?itok=QjS95fY9"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="//d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/large/s3/field/image/Policing-for-Profit.jpg?itok=QjS95fY9" width="480" height="320" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>In November 2013, Trevor Paine was on his through Humboldt County, Nevada on his way to California when he was stopped by a deputy from local sheriff's department for driving nine miles per hour over the speed limit on I-80. The deputy who stopped him claimed that his police dog had alerted him to something in Paine's vehicle and searched it without his consent.</p>
<p>Though he didn't find any drugs or contraband during the search of Paine's vehicle, the deputy did stumble upon $11,000 in cash in a lockbox, which he subsequently seized through civil asset forfeiture. Obviously, Paine objected to the seizure, but the deputy threatened that if he protested the seizure of his money, his vehicle would be impounded, which would have left him stranded in the desert. Paine was not arrested and charged with a crime, though he was given a warning for speeding, but his money was taken without any cause or evidence.</p>
<p>Without question, local aw enforcement provides the public with a valuable, honorable service. But illegal searches and seizures under civil asset forfeiture laws have become an all too common practice. The <a href="http://www.ij.org/">Institute for Justice</a>, a libertarian public interest firm, <a href="http://www.ij.org/policing-for-profit-the-abuse-of-civil-asset-forfeiture-4">calls this "policing for profit."</a> Many law enforcement agencies items seized under civil asset forfeiture to fund their operations.</p>
<p>Unlike many who have had similar experiences with the Humboldt County Sheriff's Department, Paine decided to fight back. He hired an attorney, John Ohlson, and <a href="http://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/26092-sheriffs-dept-hit-class-action-lawsuit-freeway-cash-seizures/">filed a class action lawsuit against the northern Nevada county</a>. He argued that the search and seizure violated his Fourth Amendment rights.</p>
<p>The lawsuit helped expose eyebrow-rasing abuses of civil asset forfeiture by Humboldt County. In one instance, the same deputy involved in Paine's incident asked a motorist who he'd pulled over on I-80 <a href="http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25379303/i-team-i-80-cash-seizures-by-police-raise-questions">was pretty blunt about his intention</a>. "How much money you guy?" <a href="http://www.cnn.com/videos/justice/2015/01/23/ac-pkg-tuchman-police-asset-seizures-part-two.cnn">the deputy asked</a>. After finding money in the driver's possession, he asked, "That's not yours, is it?" The driver acknowledged that the money was his, to which the deputy said, "Well, I'm seizing it."</p>
<p>Other examples show a similar pattern of behavior. In fact, forfeitures in Humboldt County have increased at an alarming rate. In April 2014, the <em>Reno Gazette-Journal</em> <a href="http://www.rgj.com/story/news/crime/2014/04/09/humboldt-files-flurry-seizure-cases/7529975/">reported</a> that "[t]wenty forfeiture cases — more than the previous four years combined — have been filed by the Humboldt County District Attorney's Office since March 14."</p>
<p>Paine's lawsuit has yielded a positive result that, one would hope, ends Humboldt County's abuse of civil asset forfeiture. Earlier this month, he <a href="http://elkodaily.com/news/humboldt-county-settles-cash-seizure-cases/article_2e1f539b-9c9c-596d-9ab9-18c388a467a2.html">reached a settlement with the sheriff's department</a> under which he'll get back the $11,000 wrongly taken from him, with interest, and his attorney's fee will be paid by the county. The settlement also requires the sheriff's department to contact at least 20 other people whose money was unlawfully taken to let them know that they may be able to get it back.</p>
<p>This is, of course, just a small victory. Most states, including Nevada, still allow law enforcement agencies to, essentially, steal innocent people's stuff under civil asset forfeiture laws and keep the proceeds for themselves. Moreover, state and local law enforcement agencies, even in states that have curtailed this practice, can still coordinate with federal agencies to seize assets under specious circumstances.</p>
<p>Not only are state-level reforms needed to rein in these abuses, but Congress can and should act on meaningful legislation, like the FAIR Act, to disincentivize law enforcement agencies at all levels of government from ignoring innocent Americans' rights.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-button-text field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Watch Julie Borowski&#039;s video on civil asset forfeiture</div></div></div>Thu, 26 Feb 2015 18:50:14 +0000jpye61169 at http://www.freedomworks.orghttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/lawsuit-forces-nevada-county-return-innocent-peoples-money-illegally-taken-through-civil#commentsHouse Hearing on Civil Forfeiturehttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/house-hearing-civil-forfeiture
<div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="//d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/large/s3/field/image/rayburn building.jpg?itok=35OwIaXD"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="//d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/large/s3/field/image/rayburn building.jpg?itok=35OwIaXD" width="480" height="314" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>Imagine this, you are moving from Michigan to California to start a new life and your dad gave you $2,500 to help you start out on your feet. While driving through Nevada you get pulled over by a deputy sheriff and he asks you how much money you have on you. You think to yourself, “that’s a strange question, but I’ve done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide,” so you tell the officer you have $2,500 from your dad. The officer then tells you he suspects your trip from Michigan to California is to acquire drugs with the $2,500 and so he seizes the cash, without arresting you, and tells you to go on your way. Welcome to the <a href="http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/860456-police-can-seize-your-property-with-little-reason-opens-door-to-corruption-say-experts/">story of Matt Lee</a>, welcome to civil asset forfeiture.</p>
<p>This is not an all that unusual story; since 9/11 police have made over <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/">61,000 warrantless seizures</a> valued at over $2.5 billion through a program called highway interdiction. With these stories coming out in the media much too regularly, the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations held a hearing on February 11 on uses and reforms of civil forfeiture. At the hearing there were four witnesses, two from law enforcement, Kenneth Blanco and Keith Henderson, and two who have represented innocent victims, Darpana Sheth and David Smith.</p>
<p>Ms. Sheth testified that there are two large problems with civil asset forfeiture. First, that the programs are largely self-financed, meaning the seizing agency gets to keep the assets they seize. She believes this profit incentive violates key principles of our founding, the separation of powers, federalism and due process. Second, there is inadequate procedural process to protect innocent victims. Too often the seizing agency handles all the proceedings and the seizure never comes before a judge; this is a part of civil forfeiture called administrative forfeitures.</p>
<p>Almost two-thirds of all civil forfeiture cases never come before a judge and all proceedings take place within the seizing agency. Of course when the seizing agency gets to decide if the seizure was valid, and also gets to keep the funds from the seizure, any hint of impartiality is thrown out the window. Another problem with administrative forfeitures is that the property is presumed to be properly seized. Only real property and property valued at over $500,000 (there is no cap on cash) must go before a judge after seizure, if your property does not fit into these exceptions you must properly file your case within 30 days, which can be extremely difficult. Even Mr. Henderson, a prosecutor in Floyd County, Indiana, believed judicial review of all cases would go a long way to fix some of the problems with civil forfeiture.</p>
<p>Civil asset forfeiture reform is long overdue. As Chairman Sensenbrenner said during the hearing, “[f]orfeitures’ only defenders seem to be its beneficiaries. . . .” The time is ripe for reform as there is broad bipartisan agreement that much is wrong with civil forfeiture in its current form. There is also <a href="http://www.ij.org/images/legislation/california/forfeiturepoll.pdf">wide agreement throughout the country</a> that people should not have their property seized without a conviction. If there is agreement that innocent people should not have their property seized, then why do we need such a broad civil forfeiture law? Criminal forfeiture should be the tool used in most cases, and would ensure that only people convicted of a crime would have their assets seized.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-button-text field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Support the FAIR Act</div></div></div>Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:21:29 +0000mgreibrok61128 at http://www.freedomworks.orghttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/house-hearing-civil-forfeiture#comments